Peripheral impairments cause a progressive age-related loss of strength and velocity-dependent power in the dorsiflexors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle power is more functionally relevant than static muscle strength, particularly with aging. However, the effect of age on power derived from isotonic contractions has been studied sparingly, and it has not been studied at all in subjects >75 yr of age. Thus the purpose was to investigate the magnitude and causes of age-related losses in isotonic power among 13 young (26 yr), 13 old (65 yr), and 13 very old (84 yr) men. Six different loads were employed to create velocity-torque and power-torque relationships. Dorsiflexor cross-sectional area was assessed via magnetic resonance imaging for the calculation of specific power. Electromyographic signals of the tibialis anterior and soleus muscles were recorded to assess agonist activation and antagonist coactivation, respectively. Despite similar contractile masses and levels of voluntary drive and antagonist co-activation, power was significantly impaired in the old vs. young (approximately 25%), and in the very old relative to both the young (approximately 60%) and old (approximately 40%). The novel results punctuate two important considerations for studies concerned with the effect of age on the neuromuscular system. First, the decreased ability of muscles from old men to produce power in the presence of reasonably well-preserved strength indicates the utility of studying isotonic contractions. Second, the precipitous decline in many measures between the seventh and ninth decades underscores the benefit of testing more than one group of aged subjects to improve our understanding of rates of change in key variables.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".